The last one is clearly the best. People are idiots, and use google searches like the address bar, likely not knowing the difference. And it’s not just a few people. It’s apparently everyone and their mom.

Four key GOP senators who have announced their support of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal are prepared to join Democrats in voting to let the bill proceed, as long as Congress first deals with a measure to fund the government, aides to the four said Friday.

The aides said Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski and Scott Brown will vote Saturday to end debate on the ban on openly gay and lesbian people in the military if the Senate passes a stopgap spending bill — a continuing resolution to keep the government funded. The four have previously said that bill must be approved first.

And now the blogosphere is hyperventilating about how DADT might finally be repealed. Well, maybe it will. But don’t you see the “out” the allegedly “moderate” GOP senators have given themselves? They say they will support the repeal only if the bill funding the government is passed first.

Well that’s really convenient, given that Reid gave up on the omnibus spending bill this morning due to the GOP blocking cloture. The supposedly moderate Republicans sicken me as much as the outright fag-haters (who are, at least, honest). The military spending bill that would have repealed DADT was blocked on procedural grounds: not enough time for amendments. Likewise, Snowe, Brown and the rest of them just keep inventing new procedural rules that will allow them to keep DADT in place. “Oh, I would LOVE to repeal DADT, I really can’t wait to do it. But I just don’t think we can until we square away the funding of our government, so when we vote on it this weekend, I won’t be able to.” Can we put to rest the lie that there are moderate GOP senators? What’s the difference when they all always vote the same way on everything?

Of course I could be wrong. But I can’t believe I haven’t seen Sargent, Benen, Cole, or Sully or someone pick up on this yet.

Today the White House has been circulating the following graph, which purports to show how important it is to accept this tax plan. After all, the blue column is taller than the red column!

The problem with this is that it’s shortsighted. It only looks at the next two years. At this point, I have LESS THAN ZERO CONFIDENCE that Obama will raise taxes on anyone in 2012 right before the election (and probably not after, either). And if you agree with me on that accord, here from MoveOn is a chart showing what happens when we look at the next 10 years.

This assumes, of course, that the benefits over the next two years aren’t extended. Who knows, many Obama would be able to procure some additional breaks. But the bottom line is that the benefits Obama touts are generally understood to be temporary, while the tax cuts are a move to solidify our tax structure in its current state. This concedes the arguments, throws away the chance of restoring Clinton-era levels, pretends that George Bush’s tax cuts were good for America, massively increases our long-term debt forecasts, and increases the fraction of government revenue that comes from the middle and lower classes. Fuck all of that.

Since we’re clearly not in the best mood right now here at the Unpersons, I’ll go ahead and sprinkle some rancid nastiness on the shit taco that today has been. Here, courtesy of Ezra, is a simple chart that illustrates quite nicely why this tax plan is something I cannot support. To hell with this. The House Dems were right to rebuke it today. I’d like to see them all revert to Clinton levels.

A key procedural vote on the bill containing a repeal of the “Screwing Over Underrepresented Groups” policy failed Thursday, likely dealing a final blow to advocates who hoped to overturn the 17-year-old violation of civil rights.

Democrats needed 60 votes to advance the “Equalizing An Underrepresented Minority Act” bill for debate on the floor. The vote failed, 57-40.

Ultimately, Majority Leader Harry Reid called for the vote without having reached a procedural agreement with moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who supports repeal but wanted a shiny pony. Collins voted aye on the measure, but other Republicans who support repeal but had voiced similar concerns about lack of ponies — Sens. Scott Brown and Lisa Murkowski — voted no.

One Democrat, newly-elected Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, broke with his party to vote no.

Supporters of repeal, including everyone with half a brain, have warned that a failure of congressional action could be a huge pain in the ass.

Opponents of repeal say blatant lies.

In remarks shortly before the vote, Reid blamed Republicans – but not Collins – for blocking the massive defense measure from coming to the floor.

“It’s quite clear that they’re trying to run out the clock,” Reid said of GOP opponents before calling for the vote.

Reid went out of his way to praise Collins for trying to reach an arrangement that would have paved the way for Democrats to win the 60 votes they need to advance the measure containing the EAUMA language. “She’s tried,” Reid said.

Collins said on the Senate floor that she was “perplexed and frustrated” that the bill would fall victim to “politics.”

“I just do not understand why we can’t proceed on a path… that will allow us to get the 60 votes to proceed,” she said.

Share this:

An alternative title for this blog post I almost used: Stupid Slate article of the week.

In this piece, Daniel Sarewitz concern trolls the institution of science because we overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Now, one thing I will grant – which is not explicitly stated in the article – is that it is important for the public to imagine that we are politically neutral, even if we are not. In fact, that is exactly what has happened. In this regard I think science is like the Supreme Court in particular and the judicial system in general. The courts are completely politically and/or ideologically motivated. But public polls continue to show the courts and the scientific community among the two most trusted institutions in the country (as opposed to the media and Congress). If the public ever knew the truth about either, that would probably change, and mostly that would have bad consequences.

Now, all that being said, Sarewitz concern trolls mostly about climate change. He’s missing the forest for the trees. This is mostly about religion. The most religious voters tend to vote Republican. The least religious don’t. Scientists are among the least religious groups you will find. And everything flows from that. Republican voters tend to think evolution is a lie. Scientists, uh, don’t. Republican voters tend to think research into stem cells shouldn’t be permitted. Scientists, again, obviously, don’t. This really isn’t that confusing.